Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] sched: Power scheduler design proposal

[Arjan van de Ven]

> > so depending of the mix of compute and memory instructions, different tradeoffs
> > might be needed.
> >
> > (for an example of this, AMD exposes a CPU counter for this as of recently and added
> > patches to "ondemand" to use it)
>
> OK, but isn't that part of why the micro controller might not make you go
> faster even if you do program a higher P state?
>
> But yes, I understand this issue in the 'traditional' cpufreq sense. There's no
> point in ramping the speed if all you do is stall more.
>
> But I was under the impression the 'hardware' was doing this. If not then we
> need the whole go-faster and go-slower thing and places to call them and means
> to determine to call them etc.

so the answer is "somewhat" and "on some cpus"
not all generations of Intel cpus are the same in this regard ;-(

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/